The basic formations, showing Cameroon's lack of a left-sided midfielder

A game unlike any that had gone before it in this tournament – this was open, exciting, frantic and stretched. Denmark narrowly deserved the win, Cameroon are slightly unfortunate to be out so early, but are no great loss to the tournament.

Denmark’s side featured significant changes from the first game against Holland. Out went Thomas Enevoldsen and Thomas Kahlenberg, and in came two veterans – Jesper Gronkjaer on the left, and Jon Dahl Tomasson behind the striker. This resulted in a change to a more attack-minded 4-2-3-1 formation, that sometimes appeared as 4-1-3-1-1.

Cameroon also played a team filled with players who missed out against Japan – they opted for a lopsided 4-3-1-2 formation, with Samuel Eto’o getting his wish by moving to a central striking role. Alex Song came into the centre of midfield, whilst Geremi started in a right-sided role. Achille Emana played behind the two strikers, presumably with some responsibility of covering the left, whilst the other two central midfielders took up fairly central positions. Consequently, Cameroon had no permanent left-sided midfield player.

This didn’t matter much in an attacking sense – they were dominating the centre of midfield early on, and with Geremi stretching the play on the right, Cameroon were finding plenty of room to create, whilst Samuel Eto’o and Achille Webo were making intelligent runs in behind the defenders.

Pressing

The game was remarkably open and both sides were finding space between the lines. Denmark were pressing well in their own half, but Cameroon were passing the ball much better than in their first game, and were closing down the Danish defenders, who often looked to start quick attacks by hitting long, diagonal balls to the wide players.

This is FIFA's "average positions" diagram from the first half, showing how Mbia (19) had support from Geremi (8), but Assou-Ekotto (2) was left on his own

Closing down high up the pitch led directly to Cameroon’s first goal. Christian Poulsen played a casual pass after receiving the ball from Thomas Sorensen, Emana seized on the loose ball and played it square to Eto’o who fired home to give Cameroon a deserved early lead.

After that, Denmark took control of the game; they were able to hold onto possession more easily because their full-backs were able to get forward and support the midfield with no out-and-out wingers to pin them back. Denmark spread the play from flank to flank and forced Cameroon’s central midfield to shift from side to side. Jon Dahl Tomasson was not at his best, but was involved in Denmark’s build-up play more than Cameroon’s two strikers, who stayed high up the pitch, and therefore Denmark were able to work the ball into the final third more intelligently.

Lack of a left-sided player costs Cameroon defensively

Cameroon’s lopsided shape had a clear problem defensively, which was essentially where the game was won. On the right, Geremi was covering the right-back Stepanie Mbia well, but on the other side, Benoit Assou-Ekotto had no-one to help take on Dennis Rommedahl. A quick bit of a mid-game analysis suggested that Denmark’s threat was always going to come from that side, and eventually Denmark naturally looked to exploit the numerical advantage on their right-hand wing.

The scene just before Denmark's equaliser. Mbia is covered by Geremi just ahead of him (blue arrow), but Assou-Ekotto (pink) is isolated against Rommedahl

The quicker they got the ball there, the better – that way, Cameroon were unable to shift their side across to close down Rommedahl. And the quickest way to do it is a huge diagonal ball from defence – Simon Kjaer was the one to do that, with a superb 60-yard ball into the path of Rommedahl. He sped in behind Assou-Ekotto and centred the ball for Bendtner, who tapped into an open goal.

Everything was going through Rommedahl. He fired over from a tight angle when through on goal, and later got in behind again, and squared the ball to Jon Dahl Tomasson, whose goal-bound shot hit a defender.

The winning goal came from Denmark finding Rommedahl in space yet again. This time, Assou-Ekotto had pushed forward, trying to provide the missing left-sided width high up the pitch, and Cameroon found substitute John Makoun facing the Ajax winger. He was completely uncomfortable there, had no support from the centre-backs, and Rommedahl casually stepped inside and curled it into the far corner.

That’s not to say there were not other tactical factors at work in this game, of course. Morten Olsen replacing Martin Jorgensen with Daniel Jensen at half-time gave the midfield added solidarity, whilst Cameroon’s switch to a two-man strikeforce left them weak elsewhere on the pitch, particularly with a lack of a goalscoring threat from the flanks. Denmark seemed unable to press for the whole game and invited Cameroon pressure for the final 15 minutes as their defensive line dropped deeper and deeper. They needed a couple of saves from Sorensen to clinch the win.

But this was essentially football tactics at its most basic. One side’s shape handed the other a clear advantage in a particular part of the pitch, and they exploited that to score both their goals.

Conclusion

Cameroon are the first side eliminated from the tournament; no passion in the first game, a tactical blunder in the second. They arguably have the strongest squad of any African side, but with clear problems with morale within it, they were never going to progress far.

Denmark are a good side to watch, and showed their tactical flexibility by playing an exciting, attacking game after their opening day conservative strategy against Holland – but they won’t find any other opponents so willing to play into their hands.

What a game! Might I suggest the complete lack of organisation and basic defending for the rest of the tournament?

Good analysis. Rommedahl had acres of space to exploit, he might not have impressed hugely while in the Premier League but he is a very good wide man with an eye for goal. When the Danes brought on Gronkjaer it gave the feeling that they’re wide players just don’t grow old (both in their 30s now).

Also, a word to Kjaer at the back who again showed that he’s going to be one of the better ball playing defenders in Europe soon enough. A fantastic defender, but a great player with the ball at his feet in addition to this, much like Agger alongside him.

I felt it was a game perfectly suited for someone like Christian Poulsen, I would’ve liked him to come into the game just a little more and interchange play and exploit weak areas of Cameroon.

Very sad to see Cameroon go out, but all is not lost for African teams, may well be seeing Ghana or Ivory Coast in the final sixteen, hopefully….

On the same day, Ghana also proved tactically inept. Their positional discipline and rhythm against 10-man Australia was abysmal.
But there’s hope with Ivory Coast. They look very well-drilled, and against Brazil, will pose more of a threat on the break than North Korea.
As for Kjaer, he still needs to iron out his occasional sleepy moments, but he’s such a talent. With him and Agger, Denmark might just boast the two most technically proficient centre-backs in the Cup.

I was thinking that. Not many teams have their two DCs standing over direct free-kicks from 20 yards out!

Cris on June 21, 2010 at 4:46 am

They’re almost de facto playmakers for Denmark, initiating build ups and taking set pieces. Whoever does end up with Kjaer will benefit tremendously, what a talent!

Peter on June 19, 2010 at 11:49 pm

This was a great game to witness as a Dane, although it also gave some concerns about the future match(es). My question is, where to you get the FIFA’s “average positions”? I can’t seem to find them on the fifa site.

Go to the matchcast part of FIFA’s website, then the pitch, then the dropdown menu…

Peter on June 20, 2010 at 11:50 am

thanks for the replies!

jni077 on June 19, 2010 at 11:49 pm

I feel sorry for Eto’o.
不怕神一样的敌人，就怕猪一样的队友。。。

Nin on June 20, 2010 at 3:01 am

Seriously, such an amazing player. On side with Messi. A waste, really.

Jim on June 20, 2010 at 10:06 am

Maybe if he finished the chance in the second half Cameroon would have got through.

steve on June 20, 2010 at 12:10 am

really hope denmark go through. japan don’t deserve to qualify, the way they play is appalling. denmark must stay patient and focused against them, and not get frustrated like the dutch did.

Daniel on June 20, 2010 at 12:43 am

The game for Denmark started like nightmare… their defensive line was all over the place and looked totally disoriented. They pick up after some 20-25 minutes, but i must say they were a little queer today. Kjaer was stable but made some crucial mistakes that could be costly, Agger was not near his best game and both Poulsen`s were preaty bad today. They must pick up from here and play the next couple (i think it will be couple cause i can see them beating Japan) games more relax and organized in last row. Plus some lousy interventions from Sorensen weren`t of any help…

Cameroon played ok, but they made some terrible shoting/passing decisions in front of the Denmark goal and that is costly in this kind of games. Song and Enoh could do much better job passing Cameroonian fowards, but they usually either lost the ball or dribble through the middle too much. Emano could score 2-3 goals today if he played more intelligent and more practical… but he didn`t.

Denmark of course exploit their oponent left side, which “beg” to be punished. Everyone could see easily that Assou-Ekotto was alone with no player in grean in some 30 metre radius, and his constant rushing forward was invitation to Rommedahl and other Danish players to force that right side which finally was decisive. I really can`t understand why LeGuen continued to let Assou-Ekotto alone there… but finally he is making calls and he will lose his job. (I think that bringing Makoun wasn`t idea of covering that left side- he just find himself in that position before Denmark second goal, Enoh and Emano had to deffend that left side much much better)

Interesting game at the end, but i must say lot of mistakes (tactical but also individual) made this game more open and more exciting that should have been.

Hello ZM I’m from Saudi Arabia, I’m a big fan of your analysis but even though Assou-Ekotto was left alone, don’t you think that Makoun allowed Rommedhal the wrong side of space? Shouldn’t he be closing him down to force a goal-kick or at least a corner?

Keep it up

Jim on June 20, 2010 at 10:11 am

When he showed Rommedhal inside Bassong should have come across and helped but he was being held by Bendtner. This was shown on the BBC.

Possibly in hindsight, but then that general tactic is probably the best bet against Rommedahl – he usually wants to go down the line, and he very rarely uses his left foot like that!

sibelkacem on June 20, 2010 at 12:55 am

Danish defenders did the same thing twice in the beginning of the match. I mean, you lost one goal this way, you got the message, you won’t do that again. But they did it again and were saved by Eto’o hitting the bar. This is plainly irresponsible.

The Olive Ridley on June 20, 2010 at 1:27 am

I did not understand why Denmark took their foot off the gas in the last 10 minutes. Surely, their coach knows that whether the game finished 2-1, or 2-2, they’d still have to beat Japan? OTH, 3-1 would see them through with a draw.

Spot on ZM. Lack of balance on the left and absence of midfield shifting was Cameroon’s bane. That’s where I am worrried about Paul Le Guen’s tactical reactions to games. He noticed this lack of midfield cover on the left, in the first half and thought the problem was with Enoh (N°18). He pulled-out Enoh whom he replaced with Makoun, but it seems he didn’t let it be known to the team that it was supposed to be a collective effort to shift to the left as well.

He tried to fix it after the Danish goal by sending on Idrissou in place of Bassong (CB) with Mbia sliding into the CB role and Geremi into RB. Unfortunately, that meant Geremi was no longer high up on the right and his crosses/threat were reduced/diminished.

In any case, in his master plan, he had never seen himself playing in a 4-4-2 so he didn’t take wingers, hoping that his attackers would balance that out in a 4-3-3. After losing to Japan and under pressure to play Eto’o in a central position and change tactics, he attempted this diamond without the men to make it work.

Yet, he could have created balance of some kind by – for instance pushing Assou-Ekotto into a left midfield position and play Gaetan Bong (a former French under 21)at left-back. There was also the option of using Choupo-Moting (Nuremberg) wide left, instead of bringing in Makoun.

All of that is ifs. Cameroon have been far from a team since January. The weak links were known to all who watched them during the preparatory phase.

It is a shame that each time they qualify, such an array of talent just can’t manage to win a single game. In the past it was administrative disorganisation (bonuses,etc) but this time it is tactical shambles and a coach who failed to get the best out of a team.

Roberticus on June 20, 2010 at 4:39 am

ZM,

I’ve written a preview of Spain’s line-up versus HOnduras over at Santapelota.blogspot

I’m really surprised that Denmark looked as frail as they did, even with pulling Jorgensen off at halftime, the midfield was providing little to no cover for the defense and there were plenty of dangerous chances for Cameroon throughout the game. They had to have a little more teeth in attack than they did against the Dutch; I would have thought that they could do so while maintaining some defensive solidity.

Constantinos on June 20, 2010 at 8:29 am

Hello. Fantastic article as always. A question to ZM: From where do you find the FIFA Average Position of players?

The first goal was only because of Assou-Ekotto’s poor play. Had there been a proper a left winger in the Cameroonian formation it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Ekotto should have done better in cutting out the ball to Rommedahl – his positioning was all wrong. So too much emphasis is being placed on the formation – imo the LB deserves more blame.

But the fact that there was no left-winger meant that Assou-Ekotto had to take up a more advanced position to provide left-sided width. Had there been one, maybe he would have been more focussed on tracking Rommedahl.

The lack of a left-winger also encouraged Denmark to keep hitting balls that way in the first place.

Anonymous on June 20, 2010 at 11:43 am

Hmm how would the presence of a left winger have influenced Denmark’s diagonal passing? Because the winger would have been farther up the pitch and not marking Rommedahl. I don’t know, seems to me that you’re linking too many different things. I agree the formation influenced the general play, but to say that it won them the game (like your article on Maicon vs Japan) is too far fetched.

Anonymous on June 20, 2010 at 11:48 am

Maicon vs Korea*. Anyway, sorry for crapping on your article, you have way more insight than I do, I’m just blabbering anyway O_O good job!

Yeah I agree with your point, but look at the picture above – if a left-winger had been as close to Assou-Ekotto as Geremi is to Mbia, then not only would Denmark have been discouraged from playing that way so often (as they did – all their attacks went down that side), it possibly would have offered a chance of doubling up against Rommedahl. Also, Assou-Ekotto would probably have been deeper.

It may not have directly stopped the goal, but it’s no coincidence that Cameroon played two players on the right, one on the left, and conceded both their goals on the left.

Robbie on June 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Excellent analysis, as usual.

Regarding Le Guen employing a lop-sided formation, is it possible he was aware of its weakness and took a calculated risk that could have worked, although ultimately back-fired?

With Emano playing so centrally, it often appeared that Cameroon were almost playing 3 narrow forwards. As a result, Denmark, particularly in the first half, were overwhelmed in central defense. During that period, there were plenty of occassions where a well timed through-ball would have provided Cameroon with a clear run on goal.

So with a better final ball, could the tactic have actually worked for Cameroon?

And also did Denmark’s defense, again more in the first half, struggle to deal with Cameroon’s tactic? My perception was that C Poulsen was initially allowing too much room between Denmark’s back and middle lines, before dropping a little deeper and getting closer to Emano. But even after that, Denmark never looked truly in control of the game.

You are correct about the calculated risk. Had the Cameroon finishing been good, they would have easily been leading 2 or 3 nil before the Danish equaliser.

The problem here is that Le Guen took a “calculated risk” which he had prepared well but actually had all of the time to do so. The players had always complained that his initial formation didn’t quite click and this one was preferable. had they worked on this as a Plan B before the tourney, it would have been easier to note and correct the weaknesses.

Taijin_Kyofysho on June 20, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Although a minor detail, I believe the second goal could’ve been prevented by the Cameroonian LB. Rommedahl’s dribble, right before he brings the ball to his left, is a tad too slow and that allows the LB to put his foot on the ball, which he didn’t. The first goal on the other hand was impressively and rather perfectly executed. The brilliant long pass, the excellent control of the ball bringing it forward, the pass and the very well timed run on Bendtner’s part

Paul on June 21, 2010 at 4:55 am

There was a technical error, but a good tactical system shouldn’t allow Rommedahl to run 1-on-1 at the defender this close to goal. That is why teams play more defenders than attackers, and why good teams respond to the other team’s shape. A good technical play overcoming tactics is when a player goes into a 2-on-3 or 1-on-2 and emerges with the ball on the other side of the defense. This play has both a tactical error (Rommedahl got a cheap 1-on-1 inside of the box) and a technical error (Assou-Ekkoto being beaten 1-on-1).

Watching the match on TV, I felt Assou-Ekotto was at fault for both the goals.

First goal, he was sucked in to the middle and thus allowed Rommedahl to deliver the perfect cross for Bendtner.

For the second, he was caught out way too high up the pitch and only made a cameo appearance in his own box after the goal was scored.

Paul Le Guen is one of the most tactically naive coaches I’ve seen at this World Cup. His fellow Frenchman, Domenech, being the other. The formation(s) used and player selections/roles for the game against Japan were simply weird and ineffective.

He did try to change things around for the cruncher against Denmark – bringing in Song and putting Eto’o up top – but that was partly because of the noises made by the senior players.

If you want to play an attacking left-back against the pace of Rommedahl without any cover/help in defensive situations, you would be caught out on the breaks. Simple as that. Any decent football observer would have realized from the off that the right flank of Denmark presented the most threat to Cameroon during the game.

I have no idea why Le Guen didn’t give Ekotto instructions to sit back a bit more instead of bombing up the flanks every time Cameroon has the ball, especially when Cameroon had the lead. The first goal could be prevented and thus, the situation with the second goal could be avoided.

I’m really disappointed with the tactical naivety showed by the African teams at this World Cup. Only Ivory Coast showed it, and Ghana, to a lesser extent. (Although seeing them pepper harmless long-range shots at the Australian goal with a one-man advantage have somehow shaken my belief in them.)